Credit to Cameron for urging the Tories to vote yes for this. Lots of talk about this issue causing some of the more backward conservative to vote elsewhere at the next GE. Could be a win win situation.

Credit to Cameron for urging the Tories to vote yes for this. Lots of talk about this issue causing some of the more backward conservative to vote elsewhere at the next GE. Could be a win win situation.

I especially liked the divorced and remarried MPs talking about how marriage could only be about the life-long commitment of a man to a woman.

Whilst I've been critical of my local Conservative MP on here in the past for not answering a letter I sent I'll take my hat off to him today, Andrew Percy MP voted for equal marriage.

Well done.

I think the wider question needs to be what happens to the Conservative Party as a whole now. I won't vote for it whilst its over half full of people whose attitudes were socially conservative in the 1950's. I might however vote for a Conservative party with more socially liberal attitudes.

Personally I would like the party to split between the far right and the centre right and the libertarians... I admit I'm living in cloud cuckoo land, but you can bet if that happened you'd have conservatives wanting PR in flash.

Given the Craig Whittaker, the MP for the Calder Valley voted against, I can imagine that there will be a fair percentage of the population of Hebden Bridge going nuts.

I honestly can't see what the issue is. On a legal basis, as far as I can tell at least, the only difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is the name. Whilst I'm all for equality, it all just feels like semantics from both sides to me. If I'm missing something on the legal side of things, please feel free to correct me.

And do what?Sounds like you are proposing a form of McCarthyism where everyone must feel the same or else. Maybe they feel strongly over the matter?

I know everyone is scrambling aboard the bandwagon so as not to be seen as anti gay or not with it but not even all gays agree that this is a life or death issue and the ones I have spoken to about it can't understand the urgency of it all.

I agree with Sev on this. This is a great result. In addition to addressing the main issue, if it drives the small-minded homophobic, xenophobic, Europhobic rabid right into the oblivion that is UKIP, so much the better for all of us come election time. By this one single action, Cameron has significantly boosted his re-election chances.

Maybe they do. If they are unable to cope with using the term 'marriage' to describe a legal declaration of commitment between two adults and feel strongly enough to vote against it then it (subject to certain other considerations) is a strong indicator that they are a bigot.

I respect everyone's right to an opinion. I don't have to respect their opinion though. I expect my opinions to be challenged, they shouldn't expect theirs to be met with silence under some bizarre notion of 'free speech'.

--

I know it's not uniform approval or desire in the gayist community. It seems to me a majority embrace the idea of their relationships having identical and equal value to straight relationships in language and law though. The only decriers I saw or heard yesterday were people who, if straight, wouldn't be lining up to commit anyway. Nobody's stopping them carrying on as they like, just as nobody would stop a straight Don Juan from bedhopping.

As for the urgency. If it's not important, why not just shrug shoulders, let it pass and move on ...

And do what?Sounds like you are proposing a form of McCarthyism where everyone must feel the same or else. Maybe they feel strongly over the matter?

I know everyone is scrambling aboard the bandwagon so as not to be seen as anti gay or not with it but not even all gays agree that this is a life or death issue and the ones I have spoken to about it can't understand the urgency of it all.

Although I do agree with your last paragraph in general, the problem is that the government has brought forward this legislation, essentially making it a yes/no/abstain question, forcing MPs to publicly make their mind up.

For me though, it should be a no-brainer, shrug your shoulders, vote it in and get on with more important stuff.

It will be interesting going through the Lords.

Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway

My local MP voted against, however in her defence on her website and twitter account she maintains that the overwhelming majority of contact from constituents on the matter was against. Her figures are over 500 to 33, so I suppose she was reflecting the will of her constituents.
Democracy or some such nonsense.

My local MP voted against, however in her defence on her website and twitter account she maintains that the overwhelming majority of contact from constituents on the matter was against. Her figures are over 500 to 33, so I suppose she was reflecting the will of her constituents.Democracy or some such nonsense.

The benefits for a free vote do at least allow for MPs to represent their constituents' views if they deign to do so. They do also allow for a cop out clause if they choose as well.

Sarah Teather's revelation that she's a conservative Catholic at heart was a bit of a surprise. She and Maria Miller will make a lovely couple.

Given the Craig Whittaker, the MP for the Calder Valley voted against, I can imagine that there will be a fair percentage of the population of Hebden Bridge going nuts.

I honestly can't see what the issue is. On a legal basis, as far as I can tell at least, the only difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is the name. Whilst I'm all for equality, it all just feels like semantics from both sides to me. If I'm missing something on the legal side of things, please feel free to correct me.

Does this mean there wont be any more civil ceremonies now as two same gender people committing in a civil environment (eg registry office/hotel etc) will now be called a marriage?

As understood it the main definition would be the religious element, and this is up to the church/mosque/synagogue etc to decide whether they want to do it on behalf of the couple requesting it. How long until there is a legal challenge and a church (etc) is in the dock?

Civil partnerships already make gays equal under law, that red herring. It seems to me that it is people who aren't gay who are making the biggest song & dance about it, in order to show they are not out of touch and are really modern actually. I'm not convinced.

Given the Craig Whittaker, the MP for the Calder Valley voted against, I can imagine that there will be a fair percentage of the population of Hebden Bridge going nuts.

I honestly can't see what the issue is. On a legal basis, as far as I can tell at least, the only difference between a civil partnership and a marriage is the name. Whilst I'm all for equality, it all just feels like semantics from both sides to me. If I'm missing something on the legal side of things, please feel free to correct me.

Craig Whittaker believes in the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman.

Civil partnerships already make gays equal under law, that red herring. It seems to me that it is people who aren't gay who are making the biggest song & dance about it, in order to show they are not out of touch and are really modern actually. I'm not convinced.

Twitter isn't representative of the wider world I know but the biggest cheerleaders that I've seen on there were yer-actual-homos. And Stonewall, which obviously represents all manner of deviants.